University of Maryland- College Park

B-416682 Oct 24, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The University of Maryland (UMD), of College Park, Maryland, the incumbent contractor, protests the award of a contract to Development Services Group, Inc. (DSG), of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM18R0225, issued by the Department of State for data collection and management services. The protester primarily alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's proposal, improperly determined that DSG was a responsible contractor, and was biased against UMD in conducting its evaluation and source selection decision. We dismiss the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  University of Maryland File:  B-416682 Date:  October 24, 2018 Jen Gartner, Esq., University of Maryland, for the protester. Joseph J. Petrillo, Esq., and Karen D. Powell, Esq., Petrillo & Powell, PLLC, for Development Services Group, Inc., the intervenor. Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest allegations are dismissed where they do not state a valid basis of protest because they do not allege unreasonable agency action or provide sufficient information to state cognizable claims; other allegations are dismissed as untimely where they are filed more than 10 days after the protester knew or should have known its basis of protest or where they do not allege a sufficient basis to establish that they were timely. DECISION The University of Maryland (UMD), of College Park, Maryland, the incumbent contractor, protests the award of a contract to Development Services Group, Inc. (DSG), of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM18R0225, issued by the Department of State for data collection and management services.  The protester primarily alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's proposal, improperly determined that DSG was a responsible contractor, and was biased against UMD in conducting its evaluation and source selection decision.  We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on June 20, 2018, for data collection and management services to assist in producing a report on worldwide incidents of terrorism (i.e., the global terrorism database).  RFP at 1, 16.  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to be performed over a 1-year base period, four 1-year option periods, and a 6-month extension period.  Id. at 2-14, 28.  Award was to be made to the firm submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer.  RFP at 33.  To be technically acceptable, each offeror had to demonstrate that it met the solicitation's technical requirements.  Id.  As relevant here, the solicitation stated that "resumes will be evaluated against the minimum qualifications for each proposed labor category."  RFP, amend. 2 at 9.  The database manager/administration labor category required the proposed employee to possess a bachelor's degree in computer science, management information systems, or related field, and to have seven to nine years of database design and implementation experience.  RFP at 19.  UMD and DSG were the only firms to submit proposals prior to the July 2 closing date.  The agency determined that both proposals were technically acceptable and made award to DSG as it had the lowest price, $10,376,378.  Contracting Officer's Statement at 5.  On August 3, the agency notified UMD that DSG was the awardee.  Protest at 2.  On August 6, UMD learned that DSG had made contingent offers of employment to several UMD employees, and that UMD's information technology manager for this project, Employee A, had accepted employment with DSG.  Id. On August 13, UMD filed its protest alleging three grounds.  First, UMD alleged that DSG included Employee A in its proposal without his permission.  Protest at 2.  Second, UMD alleged that DSG "may have inflated [Employee A's] experience with the Global Terrorism Database data collection process."  Id.  Finally, UMD alleged that because there was "only a 0.2% difference in the budgets submitted by UMD and DSG, UMD suspects that DSG may have had access to UMD's confidential information related to the UMD proposal."  Id. On August 17, the agency requested partial dismissal of the protest, arguing that UMD's allegation regarding its confidential information was legally insufficient.  Agency Request for Partial Dismissal at 2-3.  On August 20, DSG requested dismissal of the remaining allegations, arguing that those allegations were factually incorrect or speculative.  Intervenor's First Request for Dismissal at 1-3.  Specifically, DSG asserted that it did not improper...